Boston Marathon hit by explosions

[Tero]

So will he be sent to the terrorist housing unit we keep in Cuba?

[pErvinalia]

That's a recipe for disaster. (as you can see by the large number of whackjobs you have in the US who talk about overthrowing the gubmint). The ordinary citizen, let alone the very poorly educated citizen is in no position to make interpretations of complex issues like this. If they were, then you wouldn't need a law degree and bucketloads of experience to serve on the supreme court.

Well, you might think that, but it really is not a recipe for disaster.

The far right seem particularly frothy about Obama the socialist. Is it inconceivable that they might try and overthrow him (or some other Dem president) one day? I know what answer Seth would give to that question. Either way, it seems to cause an unhealthy type of debate. Particularly when you get politicians edging closer and closer to explicitly saying things of this nature.

It's kind of like everyone being responsible for their own morality, which is one of the bulwarks of rational atheism. There is no final authority which interprets what is moral or not moral, we each have to decide for ourselves what is moral and immoral. The same is true for constitutional vs. unconstitutional. Everyone is free to think murder is moral, and slavery is constitutional, but the interplay of all the millions of views on it is what ultimately decides.

Sure, but you listen to people like Seth (and I'm led to believe there are a quite a few people like him) and they don't give a shit about democracy or what the masses want. They interpret the constitution their way, and everyone else is a socialist. Essentially, your scenario above relies on people being rational. People aren't overly rational. That's why we need things like constitutions and a Supreme Court to look after it.

The ordinary citizen MUST make decisions like this. There is no other choice. There is nobody else to make the decision, or at least nobody else who ought to be handed the exclusive authority. Elected officials ought not be handed exclusive authority, as they serve at the pleasure of their constituents. Their constituents are required to determine which candidate is fit to make government decisions, so if the constituents can make that choice, why would we deny them the right to decide what is constitutional?

That's fair enough, but as I said, the Seth's of the world don't like democracy. Judging at election time the perfomance of a government and/or politician at adhering to the constitution is not considered a valid statement for the extreme right wing.

[Coito ergo sum]

So will he be sent to the terrorist housing unit we keep in Cuba?

Doubtful. He'll have some very uncomfortable moments with agents from the FBI, CIA, and NSA bearing down on him, though. Whether they give him the death penalty or not, his life is over. He would be killed if put in a regular prison, so he has to be in solitary and under guard all the time. He will likely beg for death before it's over.

Didn't Obama close that, anyway? Oh, wait....

[pErvinalia]

How's his condition? Have they been able to interview him yet?

[Coito ergo sum]

That's a recipe for disaster. (as you can see by the large number of whackjobs you have in the US who talk about overthrowing the gubmint). The ordinary citizen, let alone the very poorly educated citizen is in no position to make interpretations of complex issues like this. If they were, then you wouldn't need a law degree and bucketloads of experience to serve on the supreme court.

Well, you might think that, but it really is not a recipe for disaster.

The far right seem particularly frothy about Obama the socialist. Is it inconceivable that they might try and overthrow him (or some other Dem president) one day? I know what answer Seth would give to that question. Either way, it seems to cause an unhealthy type of debate. Particularly when you get politicians edging closer and closer to explicitly saying things of this nature.

Obama does support socialism, in my view. If he had his druthers, he'd do much more than he is actually able to do.

But, because people think Obama is pro-socialist doesn't mean that they think all government is socialism.

There are far more leftist violent folks in the US than right wing violent folks. The once burning buildings, overturning cop cars and bashing in windows are generally leftists protesting the government's globalization trade policies.

It's kind of like everyone being responsible for their own morality, which is one of the bulwarks of rational atheism. There is no final authority which interprets what is moral or not moral, we each have to decide for ourselves what is moral and immoral. The same is true for constitutional vs. unconstitutional. Everyone is free to think murder is moral, and slavery is constitutional, but the interplay of all the millions of views on it is what ultimately decides.

Sure, but you listen to people like Seth (and I'm led to believe there are a quite a few people like him) and they don't give a shit about democracy or what the masses want. They interpret the constitution their way, and everyone else is a socialist. Essentially, your scenario above relies on people being rational. People aren't overly rational. That's why we need things like constitutions and a Supreme Court to look after it.

I don't think even Seth said anything of the kind.

Sure, the Supreme Court interprets the constitution, but sometimes they say stupid shit, like in the Dred Scott (blacks are not people) opinion or the case of Buck v. Bell (forced sterilization of the retarded), Bowers v Hardwick (upholding laws against consensual, private sodomy) or Shenck v United States (where a Jewish socialist distributing leaflets written in Yiddish protesting the World War 1 draft was considered a clear and present danger justifying criminal prosecution...).

We can't put the EXCLUSIVE power to interpret things into the hands of a small body of people, because those are the mistakes they make. Their supposed to be the smart ones, and look at the shit they pull.

The ordinary citizen MUST make decisions like this. There is no other choice. There is nobody else to make the decision, or at least nobody else who ought to be handed the exclusive authority. Elected officials ought not be handed exclusive authority, as they serve at the pleasure of their constituents. Their constituents are required to determine which candidate is fit to make government decisions, so if the constituents can make that choice, why would we deny them the right to decide what is constitutional?

That's fair enough, but as I said, the Seth's of the world don't like democracy. Judging at election time the perfomance of a government and/or politician at adhering to the constitution is not considered a valid statement for the extreme right wing.

Well, I like limited democracy. Democracy, like everything else, is not a universal good. Checks and balances are good for almost everything. The check on democracy is liberty. Within certain spheres, the individual must not be subject to democracy.

Judging at election time the performance of agovernment or politician is not considered a valid statement for the extreme left wing either. The two extremes are equally loathing of the western democratic process.

[Svartalf]

So will he be sent to the terrorist housing unit we keep in Cuba?

Doubtful. He'll have some very uncomfortable moments with agents from the FBI, CIA, and NSA bearing down on him, though. Whether they give him the death penalty or not, his life is over. He would be killed if put in a regular prison, so he has to be in solitary and under guard all the time. He will likely beg for death before it's over.

Didn't Obama close that, anyway? Oh, wait....

don't diss the big O, he still has 2 1/2 years to make good on that promise, even if he ought to have done it during his first term.

[Coito ergo sum]

So will he be sent to the terrorist housing unit we keep in Cuba?

Doubtful. He'll have some very uncomfortable moments with agents from the FBI, CIA, and NSA bearing down on him, though. Whether they give him the death penalty or not, his life is over. He would be killed if put in a regular prison, so he has to be in solitary and under guard all the time. He will likely beg for death before it's over.

Didn't Obama close that, anyway? Oh, wait....

don't diss the big O, he still has 2 1/2 years to make good on that promise, even if he ought to have done it during his first term.

Heaven forbid we diss the big O. It's like -- As someone pointed out above, the drone attacks are breeding more terrorists than ever before, but even though Obama is ordering them, we ought not blame him...

[pErvinalia]

That's a recipe for disaster. (as you can see by the large number of whackjobs you have in the US who talk about overthrowing the gubmint). The ordinary citizen, let alone the very poorly educated citizen is in no position to make interpretations of complex issues like this. If they were, then you wouldn't need a law degree and bucketloads of experience to serve on the supreme court.

Well, you might think that, but it really is not a recipe for disaster.

The far right seem particularly frothy about Obama the socialist. Is it inconceivable that they might try and overthrow him (or some other Dem president) one day? I know what answer Seth would give to that question. Either way, it seems to cause an unhealthy type of debate. Particularly when you get politicians edging closer and closer to explicitly saying things of this nature.

Obama does support socialism, in my view.

There are far more leftist violent folks in the US than right wing violent folks. The once burning buildings, overturning cop cars and bashing in windows are generally leftists protesting the government's globalization trade policies.

Probably. But they don't talk about overthrowing the government. And they also don't have access to an inordinate amount of guns and ammo.

It's kind of like everyone being responsible for their own morality, which is one of the bulwarks of rational atheism. There is no final authority which interprets what is moral or not moral, we each have to decide for ourselves what is moral and immoral. The same is true for constitutional vs. unconstitutional. Everyone is free to think murder is moral, and slavery is constitutional, but the interplay of all the millions of views on it is what ultimately decides.

Sure, but you listen to people like Seth (and I'm led to believe there are a quite a few people like him) and they don't give a shit about democracy or what the masses want. They interpret the constitution their way, and everyone else is a socialist. Essentially, your scenario above relies on people being rational. People aren't overly rational. That's why we need things like constitutions and a Supreme Court to look after it.

I don't think even Seth said anything of the kind.

Trust me when I tell you he's said this, and things way crazier than this. If there's anyone on the whole internet that I understand very well, it's Seth. We go back a long way to RDF and some massive battles there. I've heard it all.

Sure, the Supreme Court interprets the constitution, but sometimes they say stupid shit, like in the Dred Scott (blacks are not people) opinion or the case of Buck v. Bell (forced sterilization of the retarded), Bowers v Hardwick (upholding laws against consensual, private sodomy) or Shenck v United States (where a Jewish socialist distributing leaflets written in Yiddish protesting the World War 1 draft was considered a clear and present danger justifying criminal prosecution...).

Yeah, there's something very wrong with all levels of government in your country. Our Supreme court seem eminently sane and reasonable for the most part.

We can't put the EXCLUSIVE power to interpret things into the hands of a small body of people, because those are the mistakes they make. Their supposed to be the smart ones, and look at the shit they pull.

What sort of shit do you think the ignorant masses will pull?

Judging at election time the performance of agovernment or politician is not considered a valid statement for the extreme left wing either. The two extremes are equally loathing of the western democratic process.

So, you agree with me that it's a recipe for disaster.

[Warren Dew]

Republicans are pushing for a new concept of Miranda rights.

To the contrary, it's Democrats who are pushing to water down Miranda rights. Extending "exigent circumstances" to the long term is an Obama thing, not a Bush thing.

[Warren Dew]

Republicans are pushing for a new concept of Miranda rights. The professional criminals are presumably good for the economy. It keeps security companies going. The mugger may have money left for the baby's diapers, after they buy some heroin (not taxed, poor retyrn to society). So I think killing a spouse also should not give you Miranda rights. Not a capitalist crime, unless you mabage to spend his/her money before arrest.

This is where people are missing it.

Not being READ your Miranda rights is not the same thing thing as not HAVING Miranda rights.

Look - cops don't have to read ANYONE Miranda rights just because they are arresting someone. They are free to arrest someone without reading rights, and they do so all the time. Sometimes cops will plop the person in the back of the car and talk about the weather. Sometimes the dopey criminal will start talking and make all kinds of useful statements without ever having been questioned. If they do that, the evidence is admissible.

The only time Miranda is really relevant is when a person is subjected to "custodial interrogation." If they interrogate a suspect, and the suspect confesses or gives evidence against himself BECAUSE OF the custodial interrogation, and the Miranda rights have not been read, then that evidence MAY, but not in all cases will, be excluded from evidence at trial.

In a case where the evidence is mountainous, though, the cops may not give a flying fuck about answers to questions for the purposes of trial. They may just want information for other purposes, like further investigation. In which case, if they never seek to introduce answers to interrogation questions in court, they never have to read the rights at all.

This is not different for anyone else. This is not some special rule for these Chechen cock knockers.

You're describing the situation under Bush. Obama is going further, and claiming he can do all this, and still use any information obtained in court due to "exigent circumstances".

[Coito ergo sum]

That's a recipe for disaster. (as you can see by the large number of whackjobs you have in the US who talk about overthrowing the gubmint). The ordinary citizen, let alone the very poorly educated citizen is in no position to make interpretations of complex issues like this. If they were, then you wouldn't need a law degree and bucketloads of experience to serve on the supreme court.

Well, you might think that, but it really is not a recipe for disaster.

The far right seem particularly frothy about Obama the socialist. Is it inconceivable that they might try and overthrow him (or some other Dem president) one day? I know what answer Seth would give to that question. Either way, it seems to cause an unhealthy type of debate. Particularly when you get politicians edging closer and closer to explicitly saying things of this nature.

Obama does support socialism, in my view.

I base that view on his books, and many of his statements since 2006, when I first started hearing a lot about him. I am not saying that he is an avowed socialist, but I think that he supports socialism as an idea and a philosophy.

There are far more leftist violent folks in the US than right wing violent folks. The once burning buildings, overturning cop cars and bashing in windows are generally leftists protesting the government's globalization trade policies.

Probably. But they don't talk about overthrowing the government. And they also don't have access to an inordinate amount of guns and ammo.

They have the same access to guns and ammo as anyone else, and they most certainly do talk about overthrowing the government.

It's kind of like everyone being responsible for their own morality, which is one of the bulwarks of rational atheism. There is no final authority which interprets what is moral or not moral, we each have to decide for ourselves what is moral and immoral. The same is true for constitutional vs. unconstitutional. Everyone is free to think murder is moral, and slavery is constitutional, but the interplay of all the millions of views on it is what ultimately decides.

Sure, but you listen to people like Seth (and I'm led to believe there are a quite a few people like him) and they don't give a shit about democracy or what the masses want. They interpret the constitution their way, and everyone else is a socialist. Essentially, your scenario above relies on people being rational. People aren't overly rational. That's why we need things like constitutions and a Supreme Court to look after it.

I don't think even Seth said anything of the kind.

Trust me when I tell you he's said this, and things way crazier than this. If there's anyone on the whole internet that I understand very well, it's Seth. We go back a long way to RDF and some massive battles there. I've heard it all. [/quote]

Well, o.k., then he's wrong.

Sure, the Supreme Court interprets the constitution, but sometimes they say stupid shit, like in the Dred Scott (blacks are not people) opinion or the case of Buck v. Bell (forced sterilization of the retarded), Bowers v Hardwick (upholding laws against consensual, private sodomy) or Shenck v United States (where a Jewish socialist distributing leaflets written in Yiddish protesting the World War 1 draft was considered a clear and present danger justifying criminal prosecution...).

Yeah, there's something very wrong with all levels of government in your country. Our Supreme court seem eminently sane and reasonable for the most part.

I'm sure there are times when it's sounded less than sane or reasonable. Your country has a fucked up government too. The difference is that your country is about the size, population wise, of one medium sized American State, and you don't have a billion people flyspecking everything the Australian goverments do 24-7. Shit, people worldwide flyspeck what the government of Boston does, as we have seen in the last week or so, let alone Washington DC. Hardly anybody pays attention to Oz, no offense...

We can't put the EXCLUSIVE power to interpret things into the hands of a small body of people, because those are the mistakes they make. Their supposed to be the smart ones, and look at the shit they pull.

What sort of shit do you think the ignorant masses will pull?

Elect whackjobs? If our culture is such that ends the job of the electorate at the voting booth, then all responsibility is ceded at that point. It's far better to have an active electorate, where some percentage of the population will be striving to know things and do the right things, whatever their view of "right" is.

Judging at election time the performance of agovernment or politician is not considered a valid statement for the extreme left wing either. The two extremes are equally loathing of the western democratic process.

So, you agree with me that it's a recipe for disaster.

No. I said the opposite. I don't care what the extremes of any side want, generally speaking.

[Coito ergo sum]

That's a recipe for disaster. (as you can see by the large number of whackjobs you have in the US who talk about overthrowing the gubmint). The ordinary citizen, let alone the very poorly educated citizen is in no position to make interpretations of complex issues like this. If they were, then you wouldn't need a law degree and bucketloads of experience to serve on the supreme court.

Well, you might think that, but it really is not a recipe for disaster.

The far right seem particularly frothy about Obama the socialist. Is it inconceivable that they might try and overthrow him (or some other Dem president) one day? I know what answer Seth would give to that question. Either way, it seems to cause an unhealthy type of debate. Particularly when you get politicians edging closer and closer to explicitly saying things of this nature.

Obama does support socialism, in my view.

I base that view on his books, and many of his statements since 2006, when I first started hearing a lot about him. I am not saying that he is an avowed socialist, but I think that he supports socialism as an idea and a philosophy.

There are far more leftist violent folks in the US than right wing violent folks. The once burning buildings, overturning cop cars and bashing in windows are generally leftists protesting the government's globalization trade policies.

Probably. But they don't talk about overthrowing the government. And they also don't have access to an inordinate amount of guns and ammo.

They have the same access to guns and ammo as anyone else, and they most certainly do talk about overthrowing the government.

It's kind of like everyone being responsible for their own morality, which is one of the bulwarks of rational atheism. There is no final authority which interprets what is moral or not moral, we each have to decide for ourselves what is moral and immoral. The same is true for constitutional vs. unconstitutional. Everyone is free to think murder is moral, and slavery is constitutional, but the interplay of all the millions of views on it is what ultimately decides.

Sure, but you listen to people like Seth (and I'm led to believe there are a quite a few people like him) and they don't give a shit about democracy or what the masses want. They interpret the constitution their way, and everyone else is a socialist. Essentially, your scenario above relies on people being rational. People aren't overly rational. That's why we need things like constitutions and a Supreme Court to look after it.

I don't think even Seth said anything of the kind.

Trust me when I tell you he's said this, and things way crazier than this. If there's anyone on the whole internet that I understand very well, it's Seth. We go back a long way to RDF and some massive battles there. I've heard it all. [/quote]

Well, o.k., then he's wrong.

Sure, the Supreme Court interprets the constitution, but sometimes they say stupid shit, like in the Dred Scott (blacks are not people) opinion or the case of Buck v. Bell (forced sterilization of the retarded), Bowers v Hardwick (upholding laws against consensual, private sodomy) or Shenck v United States (where a Jewish socialist distributing leaflets written in Yiddish protesting the World War 1 draft was considered a clear and present danger justifying criminal prosecution...).

Yeah, there's something very wrong with all levels of government in your country. Our Supreme court seem eminently sane and reasonable for the most part.

I'm sure there are times when it's sounded less than sane or reasonable. Your country has a fucked up government too. The difference is that your country is about the size, population wise, of one medium sized American State, and you don't have a billion people flyspecking everything the Australian goverments do 24-7. Shit, people worldwide flyspeck what the government of Boston does, as we have seen in the last week or so, let alone Washington DC. Hardly anybody pays attention to Oz, no offense...

We can't put the EXCLUSIVE power to interpret things into the hands of a small body of people, because those are the mistakes they make. Their supposed to be the smart ones, and look at the shit they pull.

What sort of shit do you think the ignorant masses will pull?

Elect whackjobs? If our culture is such that ends the job of the electorate at the voting booth, then all responsibility is ceded at that point. It's far better to have an active electorate, where some percentage of the population will be striving to know things and do the right things, whatever their view of "right" is.

Judging at election time the performance of agovernment or politician is not considered a valid statement for the extreme left wing either. The two extremes are equally loathing of the western democratic process.

So, you agree with me that it's a recipe for disaster.

No. I said the opposite. I don't care what the extremes of any side want, generally speaking.

[pErvinalia]

Australia is better than the US.

[Tero]

So will he be sent to the terrorist housing unit we keep in Cuba?

Doubtful. He'll have some very uncomfortable moments with agents from the FBI, CIA, and NSA bearing down on him, though. Whether they give him the death penalty or not, his life is over. He would be killed if put in a regular prison, so he has to be in solitary and under guard all the time. He will likely beg for death before it's over.

Didn't Obama close that, anyway? Oh, wait....

don't diss the big O, he still has 2 1/2 years to make good on that promise, even if he ought to have done it during his first term.

So when will the kid be ready for waterboarding?

[pErvinalia]

There's probably some FBI agent in there now sticking his finger in the kid's gunshot wounds making him talk.